What is the "New Perspective on Paul"? A Basic Explanation (Part 4)
Read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
NPP righteousness versus Pauline righteousness: The “Works of the Law”
In an excellent piece for Christianity Today entitled “What Did Paul Really Mean?” (thanks, Filops!) Simon Gathercole called attention to the way New Perspective scholars interpret the phrase “the works of the law.” He writes:
According to the new perspective, Paul is only focusing on these aspects of Jewish life (Sabbath, circumcision, food laws) when he mentions “works of the law.” His problem isn’t legalistic self-righteousness in general. Rather, for Jews these works of the law highlighted God’s election of the Jewish nation, excluding Gentiles. Called by God to reach the Gentiles, Paul recognizes that Jews wrongly restricted God’s covenant to themselves.
Gathercole’s comment matches Dunn a little more than Wright, but neither scholar thinks “works of the law” means the achieving of merit through religious deeds. Certainly we can say it is doubtful if many Jews in the Second Temple period were “legalistic” in the sense that they truly believed their works were good enough. But they were still going about to establish themselves by the law:
For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Rom. 10:3-4)
The plain fact is, the righteousness the Jews were striving for was not what God would call righteousness because it wasn’t the righteousness of God in Christ. “Grace” was not viewed within Second Temple Judaism in the Pauline sense:
To say that salvation in Judaism was by grace and imply that “works” in the Lutheran sense were excluded is simply not true to Judaism. Nor should one expect that a Judaism that did not see humanity as fundamentally lost, nor requiring the death of God’s Son for its redemption, would construe the relation between divine grace and human works in the same way Paul did. (Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics, 443-444)
Because of this misunderstanding of grace, the Judaism’s interpretation of “the works of the law” was indeed that religious works were required for salvation. Hence, the offense of the Cross.
Furthermore, there is a big difference between the idea of imputed righteousness (Reformers) and inclusive communal righteousness which is not imputed (New Perspective).
If we take a passage like Romans 9:30-32 perhaps we can see this illustrated better:
What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone. (Rom. 9:30-32)
Again, Dunn and Wright would say, “Yes, but the ‘works of the law’ are these external badges of status within the covenant, not religious works or works of merit.” If true, this would entail the verses underlined above would mean that because Israel’s faith was directed toward the emblems of the covenant and not the Lord [Christ] of the covenant, Israel had stumbled over the issue of Jesus and the salvation of the world. They did not realize that faith in the covenant and Messiah was not restricted to Israel. All nations now had access to the covenant people of God in Christ through the exercise of an ongoing faith in Him.
Faith, though, is not accounted as righteousness in a one-time legal sense because imputation is deemed absurd. Even N. T. Wright, for all his language about the propitiatory nature of Christ’s death, cannot accept the doctrine of imputation. As Waters writes,
Wright frequently avers that God at the cross “dealt once and for all with the sin of the world.” A study of his comments on Christ’s death … in his recent commentary on Romans shows Wright’s consistent refusal to articulate Christ’s death in terms of an imputed righteousness … . While Christ’s death may be said to be atoning, punitive, even propitiatory, Wright consistently refuses to detail the mechanism by which Christ’s death comes to be applied to the individual believer in time and history. (Guy Prentiss Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Response, 141-142)
However, in Romans 4:4-5 grace is equated with faith in Jesus Christ and is opposed to works. This then means that the supposed ‘grace’ that, according to the New Perspective, the Jews were thinking of when they were speaking of their privileged position within the covenant (i.e. their boundary markers of Sabbath and circumcision and so on), is not the same grace that Paul is speaking about. The grace that he is referring to is something given to a person when they accept Jesus Christ as Savior! Because of this grace, the sinner passes from death to life. Something happens to them; they are taken out of Adam and they are put into Christ! Grace does this, not works.
On another passage in Romans, Seifrid comments:
This Christological understanding of justification is especially apparent in Romans 5:12-21, where Paul summarizes his initial exposition of justification and hope, and restates his preceding argument in a new form. Up to this point in the letter he has presented justification as a matter of the standing of the individual before God; in this passage he sets it in the context of human history, which he defined in terms of divine judgment in Adam and grace in Christ. (Mark A. Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification, 70)
When this idea of “grace in Christ” is coupled with Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:8-9, one gains a true understanding of what “grace” is, and also what Paul means by “works.” Although Paul is dealing with Gentiles in Ephesians (though there was a Jewish community there), he is working within the same frame of reference as in Romans 4 and 5:
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph. 2:8-10)
So “works” in Paul are either things we do because we are saved and have trusted in Christ, or they are deeds that we do because we’re trying to gain favor with God by them (i.e. “the works of the law” cf. Eph. 2:15). The former are only acceptable to God after we have been “created (ktizo) in Christ Jesus.” Indeed, they cannot be performed until after we are saved. The latter do not justify because they are performed outside of Christ. But in neither case does the term “works” mean emblems of status.
Conclusion
Though limited and simplified, I hope this has been something of a useful orientation to the New Perspective on Paul. The main issue as I see it is, as always, hermeneutical. In short, proponents of this position allow their relative comprehension of facets of Second Temple Judaism (roughly 500 BC to AD 70) to cloud their reading of the New Testament, and especially of the Apostle Paul. Read as sufficient in itself, the New Testament sets out a clear picture of Jewish antagonism to the Gospel; not because of narrow covenantal boundary-markers, but because “seeking to establish their own righteousness, [they] have not submitted to the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3).
Paul Henebury Bio
Paul Martin Henebury is a native of Manchester, England and a graduate of London Theological Seminary and Tyndale Theological Seminary (MDiv, PhD). He has been a Church-planter, pastor and a professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics. He was also editor of the Conservative Theological Journal (suggesting its new name, Journal of Dispensational Theology, prior to leaving that post). He is now the President of Telos School of Theology.
- 111 views
[Joshua Caucutt]The standard is faithfulness to all that God has commanded. In neither the OT nor the NT is perfection the standard for covenant faithfulness.
I know that I am likely to eventually be forced off of SI for carrying on conversations like this, I understand that the verses that I use are not popular and that they undermine many assumptions of the majority of modern Christianity. I’m well aware of that, but please at least note that I have made no statements without support from Scripture.
Joshua, this is the second time you’ve conceded (as you must) that perfection isn’t required for ultimate justification. But you still haven’t answered the question that necessarily follows: how much imperfection, post-conversion, will cost you your justification? What do your church leaders tell your members about how they can have assurance at any given time about their state of justification? Is it as mushy as you’ve described above — i.e., be active in the right church and let the elders evaluate your works? Do some or all of your members zigzag above and below the line of acceptability, and God help them if they happen to die during a zig instead of a zag? Does one sin take you below the line and one good work take you back above? Can a person build up credits (for lack of a better word — what would you call it?) so that it takes more sin for that person to drop back below the line than another person who is just barely above the line?
And, by the way, you cited no Scripture at all for your thesis that God requires only faithfulness, not perfection, let alone for any specifics about how much imperfection is too much.
Joshua:
You stated justification can be lost.
Let me ask you plainly then, is covenant faithfulness required for final salvation or not?
I object to the way you phrase the question. Those who are truly in Christ will persevere until the end, and will demonstrate evidence of their salvation as they grow in grace and knowledge of truth. There is a massive paradigm shift between our positions. You read all admonitions for perseverance as prescriptive. “Do this, so you will achieve final salvation.” They are not. They are descriptive. “You are saved, therefore you will persevere.”
I’m not sure what to do with your Luther story … what he might have thought or felt or experienced is really pretty irrelevant unless it agrees with Scripture. I am confident that neither you nor I agree with Luther 100%, so to use him as some kind of evidence or proof simply muddies the water.
The quote from Luther is meant to demonstrate how salvation or justification cannot be earned. You believe justification can be lost and must be worked at. This is false. Also, your statement betrays the fact that you don’t really appreciate the impact the Reformation has on this very matter.
A blog is not the place for this discussion. Our positions are clearly laid out. I wish you the best.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Trying to catch up, but I am troubled at one point. It seems that perfection is the standard for justification, which is why we need the perfect subsitutionary death of Christ on our behalf in order to be justified. In Him, we stand in perfection before God and the law.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Just as a matter of clarification, Luther did not believe in the perseverance of the saints. He believed justification could be lost. Thus, predestination, which guarantees perseverance, applies to a subset of justified persons.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Chip: Yes, but I took it that Joshua was alluding to some possibility of sinless perfection or the necessity for being sinless after justification. Not sure what he was alluding to, but that was how I took it. In that respect, I disagreed with him.
Charlie: Interesting about Luther. I haven’t studied Reformation Theology in-depth yet. My point to Joshua was on justification by faith, not of works. Didn’t realize he believed justification could be lost. Interesting …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Faithfulness to the covenant… not perfection. e.g. Noah, Abraham, David, Anna, Paul, the list in Hebrews 11 - not perfection - faithfulness.
Calvin also believed that one could lose his justification. There really is no other explanation for Gal. 5:4 and Hebrews 6 and Matthew 18:21-35.
Chip - in many respects you are correct, thus we must look at what is required to be “in Him.” I suggest that “in Him” refers to the Body of Christ, the covenant community, the Church. This is why excommunication matters and why being in a false church carries with it such dire consequences.
formerly known as Coach C
Joshua,
Could you provide some quotes in context by Luther and Calvin that show that they believed one could lost their justification? Thanks.
Andrew Henderson
[Andrew Henderson]Joshua,
Could you provide some quotes in context by Luther and Calvin that show that they believed one could lost their justification? Thanks.
I happen to have this one by Calvin close at hand, so I will post it. But since Calvin and Luther were fallible, at times contradicted themselves and since no one agrees with either of them on every point, their views are really not a good place to start. There is no real benefit to exegeting Calvin. Especially when we consider that even Calvin and Luther were not compatible most of the time.
I am far more interested and it is far more valuable to keep Scripture at the forefront. However, since I have it and since it is convenient, from Calvin’s commentary on 1 John 1:7:
This passage is remarkable; and from it we first learn, that the expiation of Christ, effected by his death, does then properly belong to us, when we, in uprightness of heart, do what is right and just for Christ is no redeemer except to those who turn from iniquity, and lead a new life. If, then, we desire to have God propitious to us, so as to forgive our sins, we ought not to forgive ourselves. In short, remission of sins cannot be separated from repentance, nor can the peace of God be in those hearts, where the fear God does not prevail.
Secondly, this passage shews that the gratuitous pardon of sins is given us not only once, but that it is a benefit perpetually residing in the Church, and daily offered to the faithful. For the Apostle here addresses the faithful; as doubtless no man has ever been, nor ever will be, who can otherwise please God, since all are guilty before him; for however strong a desire there may be in us of acting rightly, we always go haltingly to God. Yet what is half done obtains no approval with God. In the meantime, by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God. Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God.
formerly known as Coach C
Luther contradicted himself at times, but if you would like to read more, this post is interesting on this point: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/10/did-luther-believe-sa…
Remember also, that Luther wished to remove James from the canon. So, use him at your peril.
formerly known as Coach C
We must remember that this thread is about the NPP. These men do not believe justification can be lost. To say such a thing is to deny that justification is “God’s gracious, legal verdict in respect of those who believe in Christ, forgiving their sins and declaring them righteous through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness” - Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 367.
Demarest’s definition is one of the best out there. The crucial matter is that an alien righteousness is given to the sinner when they trust Christ (Jn. 5:24; Rom. 3:21-28; 2 Cor. 5:21. Cf. Rom. 5:1; 8:1). Not only is the sinner declared righteous via the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, he is taken out of Adam and placed into Christ (Rom. 5:12ff.); sealed with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13), and adopted into God’s family and made an heir of God (Gal. 4:6-7). We died and are connected to Christ’s resurrection (Rom. 6:5-11). These things happened when the sinner believed. They cannot be undone! God cannot declare someone guilty whom He has by pure grace before declared as righteous as Himself! The “works of the law” in Galatians 3:1-3 are not merely ceremonial, they are ethical, as Christ’s crucifixion (v.1) and the Spirit’s sustaining (v. 3) make clear. This accords with the Apostle in Gal. 2:20 and Gal. 6:14.
Now Luther believed that justification was on the basis of Christ’s imputed righteousness. He stated,
Therefore I wish to have the words “without works” understood in the following manner: Not that the righteous person does nothing; but that his works do not make him righteous, rather that his [granted] righteousness creates works.- in Oswald Bayer, Living By Faith: Justification and Sanctification, 22.
Calvin’s statements in Book III of the Institutes could fill several pages. This will do:
To declare that by alone we are accounted righteous, what else is this but to lodge our righteousness in Christ’s obedience, because the obedience of christ is reckoned to us as if it were our own?- Institutes of the Christian Religion, Bk. III. Ch. XI. 23 (Battles, 753).
The Reformers did not believe justification could be lost. They believed that good works followed justification: that justification was attended by spiritual growth. Joshua’s quote from Calvin on 1 Jn. 1:7 utterly misreads the Reformer, who is not speaking of justification but of remission. Joshua is confused.
But Joshua is teaching that justification hinges on our obedience to the law. In other words, it is conditional and hence not a verdict already passed on us. That is Galatianism and it is heresy.
In Part 3 of this series I issued a warning about confounding justification which is legal and declarative, with (progressive) sanctification, which is transformative!
Finally, Joshua can’t read in context. Galatians 5:4 (read it) is written to the Church and warning them that if they teach this new gospel of seeking final justification via the law they “have fallen from grace.” That is, the church that preaches a false gospel falls away from the true. We know that final justification is in Paul’s mind because of the next verse (Gal. 5:5). By “final justification” I only mean the consummation of what God has begun in us (as in Phil. 1:6 and 1 Peter 1:5-13).
His touting of Hebrews 6 is in line with those who believe one can lose their salvation. Let us be clear on this. If we can lose our salvation then it is not upheld by grace, but by us. That aside, how is one to deal with the Book of Hebrews? Well, I must agree with Joshua that Hebrews does teach that a person once saved can be damned. I find all the Reformed attempts to argue otherwise unsatisfactory. Sorry to be controversial here, but there is only one answer which does not conflict with Paul (in my view), and it is right in front of our faces: Hebrews is written for Hebrews.
The only question is, when? My answer, which I cannot defend right here, is that it is for Israel in the Tribulation, waiting for the Second Coming (see e.g. Heb. 3:6, 14; 4:1; 9:15, 26-28). This matches Tribulational passages like Matt. 24:13 (which stops being a tautology); Rev. 12:17; 14:12; 15:3. While much of the teaching of the Epistle applies to the Church, some frankly does not (like the Warning Passages). Anyway, feel free to reject my view, but realize that the problem does not simply go away, and people like Joshua will rub noses in these verses.
Joshua’s third text (Matt. 18:21-35) is a problem for those brethren who believe Christ was speaking to the church (which didn’t begin till after the Resurrection - cf. Jn. 7:39). Joshua uses it to show that if a Christian harbors unforgiveness against another they will go to hell. Notice that in verse 26 the servant wants to earn forgiveness. He is forgiven, but not on the basis of another’s righteousness imputed to him! Whatever interpretation we may want to give to this parable, we had better be careful not to damn ourselves with it!
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[Paul Henebury]The Reformers did not believe justification could be lost. They believed that good works followed justification: that justification was attended by spiritual growth. Joshua’s quote from Calvin on 1 Jn. 1:7 utterly misreads the Reformer, who is not speaking of justification but of remission. Joshua is confused.
Remission of sins is not justification? Wow. Matthew 26:28, Luke 3:3, Hebrews 9:22, Acts 10:43
[Paul Henebury] Finally, Joshua can’t read in context. Galatians 5:4 (read it) is written to the Church and warning them that if they teach this new gospel of seeking final justification via the law they “have fallen from grace.” That is, the church that preaches a false gospel falls away from the true. We know that final justification is in Paul’s mind because of the next verse (Gal. 5:5). By “final justification” I only mean the consummation of what God has begun in us (as in Phil. 1:6 and 1 Peter 1:5-13).
I rest my case, the Galatians had fallen from grace. If you read the rest of chapter 5 and 6, you will also notice that Paul strongly emphasizes and reaffirms the moral law. “For the one [believer in this context] who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one [believer in this context] who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.”
[Paul Henebury] His touting of Hebrews 6 is in line with those who believe one can lose their salvation. Let us be clear on this. If we can lose our salvation then it is not upheld by grace, but by us. That aside, how is one to deal with the Book of Hebrews? Well, I must agree with Joshua that Hebrews does teach that a person once saved can be damned. I find all the Reformed attempts to argue otherwise unsatisfactory. Sorry to be controversial here, but there is only one answer which does not conflict with Paul (in my view), and it is right in front of our faces: Hebrews is written for Hebrews.
So… Hebrews was not written for Christians? So…we have here one gospel for the Jews and one for the Christian - aka two different gospels?
NPP in large part has made a strong case that the Gospel has been the same from the beginning i.e. - covenant faithfulness is required. The gospel was the same under the NC as it was under the OC - with the exception that Christ is now our “clean law” our grounds for justification lies with Him and not with circumcision, dietary laws, animal sacrifice and all the rest.
I am a little surprised that SI would feature a writer who is comfortable with marginalizing part of the New Testament canon as not really relevant to the New Covenant believer.
[Paul Henebury] The only question is, when? My answer, which I cannot defend right here, is that it is for Israel in the Tribulation, waiting for the Second Coming (see e.g. Heb. 3:6, 14; 4:1; 9:15, 26-28). This matches Tribulational passages like Matt. 24:13 (which stops being a tautology); Rev. 12:17; 14:12; 15:3. While much of the teaching of the Epistle applies to the Church, some frankly does not (like the Warning Passages). Anyway, feel free to reject my view, but realize that the problem does not simply go away, and people like Joshua will rub noses in these verses.
Warning passages do not apply to the Church?
[Paul Henebury] Joshua’s third text (Matt. 18:21-35) is a problem for those brethren who believe Christ was speaking to the church (which didn’t begin till after the Resurrection - cf. Jn. 7:39). Joshua uses it to show that if a Christian harbors unforgiveness against another they will go to hell. Notice that in verse 26 the servant wants to earn forgiveness. He is forgiven, but not on the basis of another’s righteousness imputed to him! Whatever interpretation we may want to give to this parable, we had better be careful not to damn ourselves with it!
The point is that the servant was at one point forgiven, but because he refused to follow the moral law of God (Mark 11:26), he lost his position of forgiveness (remission of sins, justification, cleansing, etc.) - all of those terms are synonymous.
formerly known as Coach C
Joshua,
You have shown a great adeptness at avoiding any arguments which pin you down and display the hastiness of your theological conclusions. These include misrepresenting Calvin and Luther, avoiding the fact that your doctrine implicitly denies the sufficiency of Christ’s substitutionary atonement (you believe it’s Christ + the “moral law” = justification). You have avoided Tyler’s question about how well one must keep the “moral law” to be justified in the end. You have taken a wide birth around Gal. 3:1-3 and Gal. 3:10-12 which tell you plainly you are misinterpreting Paul’s references to the role of the Law. You have complained about me not taking account of Second Temple hermeneutics (falsely), and yet have cut up the Law into Moral and cultic without biblical or historical warrant (your “proof-texts” in this regard are vapid). You sidestep my arguments above by honing in on selected statements which are ancillary to them. You keep going on about “the covenant” as if you have proven and defined what it is you are talking about. And now you appear to be saying that whereas Christ is our “clean law” (!) OT saints were justified “with circumcision, dietary laws” and the like. If you are not saying that above I have no idea what it is you are saying.
No, Joshua, “remission” is not justification. It is a part of it but not the whole. Did you not read the definition I supplied? That’s more than remission (i.e. the removal of the penalty for sin). Justification is the declaration that a sinner is now righteous in God’s sight through having Christ’s righteousness imputed to him. I hope you see the difference. The word katharizei is used in 1 Jn. 1:7 and applies to the cleansing of the believers sins so that he can remain “in the light” of fellowship with the Father. It is not justification which is being discussed since that is assumed to have occurred. You misread Calvin and you misread John the Apostle.
You did not follow my argument re. Galatians 5:4. Let me try again: a group of churches may start off teaching the true Gospel of justification by faith plus nothing. But over time they may change that teaching and start adding works (e.g. law keeping) to the mix. This may come in various guises. In Galatia it was circumcision, etc. In many western churches it has been liberal views of the goodness of the individual and the brotherhood of man. Whatever, there has been a fall from the Gospel of grace in the churches.
You vaguely point to chapters 5 and 6 of Galatians. You mean the ones where Paul tells them that “to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law” (not just the “moral law”? (Gal. 5:3). What about this one: “For all the law id fulfilled in one word, even this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (5:14). Do you do it perfectly? If not, you have broken the law and cannot be justified by it. In Galatians 6:2 he refers to “the law of Christ.” But that is not the Mosaic Law which is tied to the Old Covenant. The law of Christ is how Christians ought to live; not how we always do live. We do not always “walk in the Spirit.” At least no one I know does. Do you? Paul is correcting the Galatian error which mixes justification with sanctification. You misunderstand Gal. 6:8 because you think every person to whom Paul is writing is saved. He is writing to a group of churches who have left the evangelical path. He is warning them about going down that path; a path you appear to be on! Read Gal. 6:8 in the light of Gal. 3:1-3 and you will hopefully see his meaning.
You balk at the idea that the Epistle to the Hebrews might not be written directly to Christians. Well, where does it say it is? Besides, although I find standard Reformed answers to the warning passages unsatisfactory, there are others on this thread who would say it is directed at Hebrew Christians and who would contend with you.
You would have to teach that any high-handed sin results in automatic perdition (Heb. 10:26). But what of 1 Jn. 1:7? What about Rom. 8:1, 28-30, 33, 38-39? What about us being members “of His flesh and of his bones”? (Eph. 5:30). Don’t create a distraction to get from under all these issues.
Finally, you are sensitive about having someone here who believes there is more than one gospel in the Bible. You think there is one - presumably it’s 1 Cor. 15:1-4?
Well, show me anywhere in the OT where a person is said to be justified by faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Show me that in the Gospels themselves, because according to what I read Jesus forbade His disciples to tell anyone that He was the Christ (e.g. Matt. 16:20), nor did they grasp that He would be crucified (Lk. 18:31-34). And do you think they preached a message they were forbidden to preach and which they did not understand?
You surely know that “gospel” simply means “good news.” You think we lose our salvation if we do not keep the “moral law of God.” Hence, as you justify this in part with Heb. 6 & 10 you must logically believe that any failure to keep the “moral law” is grounds for damnation. THAT AIN’T GOOD NEWS! You better make sure you are believing the right Gospel!
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Discussion